BoxRec

- One of the better p4p lists, congrats.

Problem w most lists is lineal thinkers are much two dimensional to have any context. Ex is Louis clearly superior to Ali and would be better placed at #6. BLeonard considered as good as Gans, so move him near along with Fitz who was the epitome of the first queensbury p4per.

End of the day there are too many greats to be confined to 10 places and all true greats are much better than here today/gone tomorrow lists.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- One of the better p4p lists, congrats.

Problem w most lists is lineal thinkers are much two dimensional to have any context. Ex is Louis clearly superior to Ali and would be better placed at #6. BLeonard considered as good as Gans, so move him near along with Fitz who was the epitome of the first queensbury p4per.

End of the day there are too many greats to be confined to 10 places and all true greats are much better than here today/gone tomorrow lists.

Thanks. Yeah I wasn't to sure about Benny Leonard, obviously top 20 but tricky to place. Done a great deal of reading on Gans, shame he fought Langford the day after his Philadelphia fight with Holly.. a bit more preparation and it might have been closer by all accounts. Would have been great fight Leonard with a lot of power on show.. fancy close decision for Gans so you are probably right that he should be a bit nearer.

I always go back and forth with Ali and Louis that's why I have them next to each other. Power and better jab with Louis, hand speed slightly with Ali who had better reach advantage and better foot work.. in primes I find very hard to split, I see it going the distance, razor decision to either. I see it has bee discussed a lot on this forum with many conflicting opinions which probably shows how close it would have been.

The knock on Pep is that his competition wasn't as good as the guys sometimes rated above him, but the fact is he faced everyone that was available and was about as dominant a fighter as there has ever been through his first 138 fights.

I think a lot of people just don't think he quite measures up to the absolute cream of the crop in boxing history.
He was amazingly consistent. However, I would have liked to see him go the extra mile and beat one of the great lightweights that were around during his time.
He lost to Angott, and never fought Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery or Ike Williams.

Is that a "fair" fight? Not really. However, Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong Sam Langford, Ray Leonard, Harry Greb, and Ezzard Charles did that. They took the gamble and beat great fighters above their weight class.

If it sounds like nitpicking, it is. But if you are going to rate the very best over a period of more than 120 years, you have to do that.

Ambling Alp II:
He was behind Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Ali, Ray Leonard, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and Ezzard Charles. Take a look at their major wins against their losses. Pep simply doesn't match any of them. [quote]
Ezzard Charles especially stands out as "odd" here! Oh sure...underestimated!

davie wrote:

ImranSarwar wrote:^ ^ I was at WILLIE PEP'S FUNERAL!

Good for you, what do you want, a effing lolly pop?

Man..you got no "business", do you! And you get boarded real quick, don't you! : )

[quote="davie"][quote="ImranSarwar"][quote="davie"]
Guy... I don't need to talk with you. Least "personal" the better. Slob.

TBEwasLangford wrote:Number 7 for me

1. Langford
2. Greb
3. Robinson
4. Charles
5. Duran
6. Armstrong
7. Pep
8. Gans
9. Wilde
10. Whitaker
11. Ali
12. Louis
13. Tunney
14. Moore
15. Walker
16. Monzon
17. B. Leonard
18. Fitzsimmons
19. Cerdan
20. Saddler

Not a bad list. Great list after all

ImranSarwar wrote:Ambling Alp II:
He was behind Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Ali, Ray Leonard, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and Ezzard Charles. Take a look at their major wins against their losses. Pep simply doesn't match any of them.

Ezzard Charles especially stands out as "odd" here! Oh sure...underestimated!

Not sure what you meant here.
I was responding to a comment about Pep. I mentioned other guys had more impressive wins that Pep, and that Pep could have improved his victim list by beating some lightweights.
Charles was one of those I mentioned. Are you disagreeing with this?

Being 148-2-1 in a decade alone deserves all the props. Pep was the best of his time. That crap that he didn't beat great boxers is hogwash. He beat the very best of his weight class, and that's all to it. Not everyone that you face gotta be, or could be or was great. You could only fight was in front of you. And he did just that and more.

If we are going to knock his career off, then, the only thing I could see he didn't do was fight lightweight greats like Ike Williams and Beau Jack. Guys that were bigger and stronger than he was.

Armstrong, Leonard, Langford, Greb and Charles all had significant wins over fighters bigger and stronger than themselves.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Armstrong, Leonard, Langford, Greb and Charles all had significant wins over fighters bigger and stronger than themselves.

So does the Wil' of the Wisp

Ambling Alp II wrote:

ImranSarwar wrote:Ambling Alp II:
He was behind Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Ali, Ray Leonard, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, and Ezzard Charles. Take a look at their major wins against their losses. Pep simply doesn't match any of them.

Ezzard Charles especially stands out as "odd" here! Oh sure...underestimated!

Not sure what you meant here.
I was responding to a comment about Pep. I mentioned other guys had more impressive wins that Pep, and that Pep could have improved his victim list by beating some lightweights.
Charles was one of those I mentioned. Are you disagreeing with this?

Oh I got you. "Sorry". I misunderstood and took it that you were making a a.t. list [w/Ezzard Charles rated above Willie Pep]
About what you really meant, I'd have to really look at it. That's quite possible.
&, I'm from Willie Pep's home state. Been with him alone before; been with him in groups. I am PROBABLY PREJUDICE towards him! : ) But, I have always had the impression that WP belongs solidly inside the Top-7 LB4LB a.t. but......you know, these arguments can get involved.
I don't want to look at this today. Another time. I do look at RECORDS hours on end!
Thanks for your reply. John Wilkinson, NEW BRITAIN,CT. USA

Have to give you credit for admitting your prejudice!

Keep looking at records. It is interesting and fun.

Normally, I would not bring up the matter of a fighter not moving up to beat another great fighter in a higher weight class.
However, in this case I feel it's necessary. When we are picking the absolute best from more than 120 years of boxing, we have to look at something like this. We are comparing them to each other after all.

Armstrong, Charles, Greb, Langford, Leonard, and Robinson all beat a great fighter in higher weight classes. Pep did not. That is pretty significant.

Pep won 134 of his first 136 fights, against good but maybe not great competition. He disputed the one loss to Sammy Angott (no film available) and avenged the draw in impressive fashion. So could any of the other alltime greats of boxing have won 134 out of 136 against the same level of competition ? Yes, I think they could, but the odds would be against them doing it due to the incredible consistency it would require. I'm not making a case for Pep being the greatest fighter of alltime, just saying he's in the running.

Does his record get undervalued?

If we try to somehow evauate the opposition by today's standards...

Chalky Wright would likely be a mulitple belt, multi divisional champ
Maybe Willie Joyce, Demarco too...and Famechon.
Bartolo, Sierra, Riley, Archibald, Compo would all be good tips for having a world title belt at some point.

And I'm sure I missed or don't know about many more.

Willie Joyce was bigger than the great Willie Pep. He was a good lightweight that beat the great Ike Williams two out of three. So, Pep beat guys that were above his class. Plus, the best featherweights of his time, he completely dominated them

Ezzard wrote:Does his record get undervalued?

If we try to somehow evauate the opposition by today's standards...

Chalky Wright would likely be a mulitple belt, multi divisional champ
Maybe Willie Joyce, Demarco too...and Famechon.
Bartolo, Sierra, Riley, Archibald, Compo would all be good tips for having a world title belt at some point.

And I'm sure I missed or don't know about many more.

That may be true. Winning a world title is not nearly as difficult as it used to be. However, none of them were great fighters.
They don't compare to the great fighters that Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb, Sam Langford, Ray Leonard, and Ray Robinson beat.

And who says that the barometer for the Wil' of Wisp to be recognized as a great fighter should be of what fighters he beat? Is that the ONLY PARAMETER to judge a fighter, then the great Jimmy McLarnin should be #1. He beat lots of great boxers.

McGoorty wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:When it comes to defensive genius, the greats Willie Pep and Floyd Mayweather, Jr comes 1 and 2 all time

Once again I have to bring up Griffo who must surely have been better than Mayweather he sure has a far superior record and resume nad the same stuff you hear about Pep you hear about griffo, to me the best 3 defensive pure boxers are in no order, Griffo, Pep and Benny Leonard.

Sorry McGoorty, I'm not that much impressed with Young Griffo. Good Australian boxer, though. How about Hilario Zapata of Panama. He was a defensive genius

Griffo looks crude and ordinary on film, similar to a lot of fighters during his era.

Top 3,
1.Sugar Ray Robinson
2.Henry Armstrong
3.Willie Pep

Keko wrote:Top 3,
1.Sugar Ray Robinson
2.Henry Armstrong
3.Willie Pep

That's kind of fair. I can dig that.